The United States increasingly relies on unmanned aerial vehicles-better known as drones-to target insurgent and terrorist groups around the world. Proponents argue that drones are, in both political and military terms, an effective way to coerce such adversaries. Critics suggest that drone strikes not infrequently result in inadvertent civilian casualties, which terrorist and insurgent organizations use as rallying cries to garner support and legitimacy for their acts of violence. There is surprisingly little systematic evidence that either of these positions is correct. It is not clear if drone strikes have degraded their targets, or that they kill enough civilians to create sizable public backlashes against the United States. Drones are a politically and militarily attractive way to counter insurgents and terrorists, but, paradoxically, this may lead to their use in situations where they are less likely to be effective and where there is difficulty in predicting the consequences.

Why drones are different --Drones and deterrence : three perspectives -- Drones and counterinsurgency : what does the evidence tell us? -- Challenges in measuring drone strikes and insurgent activity -- Effects of drone strikes on insurgent activity -- Policy and strategy implications.